Not to keep this going but where you say you do not feel burdened by the taxes you pay I do with a family of four. I'm self employed so each month I have to wright a big check to the Fed. and one to the state. Then at the end of the year they say my business grew but I did not take home any more pay and have to pay taxes on this so called growth. I think eveyone should have to pay their own taxes as it would cause allot more people to start thinking about whats happening to all their money. Heck, ask a person what they pay in fed and state taxes and most have no clue at all just what they bring home.

I don't understand...if you're not growing you shouldn't be paying taxes on anything beyond your taxable revenue. If inflation and rising costs is taking it's toll on you then I feel you but understand that you're not the only one hurting in that regard.

As for small business operation, why are you filing your taxes every? Unless your revenue is extensive shouldn't you be filing quarterly or annually? Anywho, my parents own a small business. They have 10 or so employees and they let ADP handle their payroll taxes and a CPA do their taxes quarterly. I've heard them complaining about business being slow these days because people are cutting back on their spending and that's about it. I'm sure they wouldn't mind paying less taxes but they're not hurting because of taxes. I'm sure your situation is different but I don't know by how much.

But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, letís go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden

The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: ďA four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.Ē

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

Well stated. You are not alone in your views. The salary I earn for my family does not belong to the Government. If the Government wants to stick their hands deeper into my bank account and call it change, then I'm not on-board. While I'm definitely not in the 'rich' tax bracket, I object to tax burden that the folks in this tax bracket endure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm pretty sure the folks making this type of income will survive. Contrary to popular belief, most families making that type of money did not get it handed to them through trust funds or Mommy & Daddy paying all their bills until they were in their 30s. I would argue that their good judgement in putting 15% in their 401K and sending their children to private schools is also, in the long run, much better for the economy.

A majority of them worked their hind-quarters off to try to make a better life than what they came up in, even if it meant making sacrifices like studying in high school so they could get into a good college while their friends were at parties and getting drunk/high, studying and working internships while in college rather than blowing off class and partying, or spending years in the military to attend or pay for college at night, working 50-60 hour weeks, spending time on the road away from their families, answering pages, texts and cell phones in the middle of the night to deal with business responsibilities.

I've posted the numbers before, the top 10% of earners pay approximately 67% of the taxes in this country, the bottom 50% pay about 3%. The rates for income earned vs. tax rate is disproportionate.

WTF right does the government have to increase the tax rates on the "wealthy". It's flat out wealth confiscation and redistribution. The money earned by the American people is THEIRS it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Unfortunately, so many people have the attitude of "well they can afford it".....until they move into a higher tax bracket and their tax rate goes up. It doesn't matter if the "wealthy" can afford it, why should they? The "raise taxes on the rich" argument is class warfare at its worst. How does the "top 2%" fight this? They can't because the folks voting in November outnumber them by a vast majority and don't recognize or don't care that what is being proposed is wrong.

Not only is this approach flat out wrong, it will stiffle the economy. It has been proven time and again, when the government raises taxes the economy slows down. Like it or not, that "top 2%" is not just ambulance- chasing lawyers, professional athletes, and overpaid CEOs of major corporations. It is mostly your local doctor, dentist, salesperson, or small business person who owns the local restaurant or store at the mall. Most of these folks go to the same stores, drive on the same roads, go to the same churches and work their asses off like everyone else. And they almost never qualify for or take advantage of any government entitlement programs.

And I don't want to hear the "Warren Buffett paid 15% or 17%" argument. Buffett is in the crowd that can live off investments and has a team of accoutants/tax attorneys making sure he pays the least amount of taxes he can. Most of the people in the $ 250-300K range make a vast majority of their income through salaries and business income that isn't taxed at the lower capital gains rate.

But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, letís go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden

The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: ďA four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.Ē

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

So when Obama talks about repealing the Bush tax cuts, he's actually proposing to make the tax system less progressive.